Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LuisDantas]

True. And sadly many of them will lazily throw a God concept like pantheism in with the Yaweh-like God. I agree with the blogger that their world view is "philosophically bankrupt. Maybe it's because they're philosophically lazy.

Perhaps, but in all honesty, most people are philosophically lazy when it comes to their conceptions of religious diversity.

 

[gsa]

I feel like it's because many of the New Atheists come from the religious. The attitude is that they have to prove that their right because they're either trying to prove it to themselves or they think everybody should be in the same boat. They try to make people feel guilty for feeling the way that they do, just like mainstream Christianity. An example of this (although I enjoy her videos) is Jaclyn Glenn.

I've come to the conclusion that we all have our moments where we feel superior to the others around us but the only way we can truly come to a conclusion on things is to realize that we all are seeking the same thing and it doesn't help to blame each other for the ways we suffer, the only way we can overcome together is to put aside our differences and work towards the common goal. Which I believe is to end suffering for all.

One thing I have noticed is that American atheists, and particularly those from evangelical backgrounds, are much more adamant about their beliefs and the need to counter Christianity, including Christian apologetics. But is the goal really to make people feel guilty?

I don't doubt that many atheists feel superior in some sense to Christians. But I think most of that is attributable to having "the Truth," at least with respect to Christianity. And by and large, most of these "New Atheists" want to propagate that truth and make it a majority position. They truly do think it would be better for the believers. And they have rational arguments for why that would be the case.

 

[Cephus]

Nope, not at all. If you actually paid attention, the so-called "New Atheists", which aren't new at all, speak openly about all kinds of topics, from religion to politics to social issues. It isn't that religion is all they talk about, it's that for the religious, that's all they listen to.

 

[catch22]

Absolutely. I don't think that the reasons are at all hidden, though, and void in the heart is not cited at all. Quite the opposite: Liberation of the mind, liberation of the body. If most Christians in the United States behaved like Episcopalians they wouldn't be making this push.

I kinda wish the buttons hadn't been pushed so hard, at times. I don't think all this legislation for things I don't personally want to be written into law would have come up in the first place.

To me it's a frustrating day when believers are the cause to force anti-church in state documents. It'd have been easier to simply have kept it separate to begin with, rather than try to forcefully exert the church onto the state, only to get the obvious push back.

Alas...

What are god deniers? I think most atheists tend to be "weak," as in they allow for evidence that could refute the God hypothesis, and they're not discussing the "god" of pantheism or even necessarily the deistic one. Just the (clearly, from an atheist perspective) fictional god Yahweh and similar ones.

Sorry. I tend to view atheists in separate categories. God haters are like, well, my ex-wife. They know God is real (somewhere in there) but they hate Him and everything He stands for. Maybe more reasonably, they hate the idea of religion and it's hypocrisy, it's rules, regulations, and meddling in people's lives.

As in, I think they know better, but they join the atheist movement because hey, here's people who ARE ON MY SIDE ABOUT THAT WHOLE GOD THING! ...and they want to win, they want to be right. They want to be better than <insert group for which they hold angst against>.

And herein lies some of the misrepresentation about who atheists really are. I know "real" atheists as I've said, but so many claimed atheists really fall into another category (and I can't necessarily identify it). Those not-so-real atheists do more for Christianity than your run of the mill, non-involved self-proclaimed Christian does (perhaps).

EDITS: quote-tag fails.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't doubt that many atheists feel superior in some sense to Christians. But I think most of that is attributable to having "the Truth," at least with respect to Christianity. And by and large, most of these "New Atheists" want to propagate that truth and make it a majority position. They truly do think it would be better for the believers. And they have rational arguments for why that would be the case.

So true.

 

[jeager106]

A month or so ago I joined a Christain Debate forum innocently thinking this might
be a forum to learn more about Christianty.
Wrong.
Paradoxily the board is polluted with atheists out numbering Christains by 5 to 1.
Interstingly the forums held my attention enough to stick around.
When I would answer the rare post by a Christian I'd get whupped good by well educated academics with great command of the English language and fine honed debate skills.
So, I learned from these liberal eggheads and read up on proper debate skills and managed to respond in like kind and kinda whupped some butts myself.
I quickly began to understand that atheists are welcome to this supposed "Christian Debate board which is kind of rare for a Christian site.
Being as I'm quite experienced and figuring out motives, former detective don'cha'know, I began learning about the various personalities.
I.E. the poster, a retired PhD, a retired prof, an academic, who won't just post a message but posts many, many, paragraphs in a hatred filled diatribe against any form of Abrahamic religions.
The guy has been on that site about 2 years and has well over 7,000 posts.
Finally it occured to me that many of these atheists, new atheists included are simply pouring soothing syrup on their own conscious for what ever reasons.
Clearly many have no Biblical background at all and have become "google experts" and google up an answer to a good theocratic question, submitting a post that is easy to discount by simply answering politley what the egghead missed in his
google search.
Now I am having a pretty fun time with these academic atheists by debunking thier "answers" by pointing out flaws in the arguments.
I have become pertty good at debate, at least on their terms, in the process.

 

[Sees]

I think there is too much Atheophobia in the world.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just a guess, but I think the poll results may suffer from some precipitation from voters. The thread title and the poll question are nearly complete opposites, and answering "No" to one will generally result in voting "Yes" for the other.

Some degree of confusion is likely to arise.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think there is too much Atheophobia in the world.

They are envious of our... powers of denying God... or something.

 

[RedDragon94]

One thing I have noticed is that American atheists, and particularly those from evangelical backgrounds, are much more adamant about their beliefs and the need to counter Christianity, including Christian apologetics. But is the goal really to make people feel guilty?

I don't doubt that many atheists feel superior in some sense to Christians. But I think most of that is attributable to having "the Truth," at least with respect to Christianity. And by and large, most of these "New Atheists" want to propagate that truth and make it a majority position. They truly do think it would be better for the believers. And they have rational arguments for why that would be the case.

I believe that if a Christian does any research themselves they will come to the same conclusions that these people do, if that's really what the truth is there will be no point in arguing about it. What we need to do is not dismiss any claims just because they aren't worth discussing in our minds. Let's actually try to debunk the myths for people and get the word out doing that. It's better than just calling people stupid.

 

[RedDragon94]

One thing I have noticed is that American atheists, and particularly those from evangelical backgrounds, are much more adamant about their beliefs and the need to counter Christianity, including Christian apologetics. But is the goal really to make people feel guilty?

I don't doubt that many atheists feel superior in some sense to Christians. But I think most of that is attributable to having "the Truth," at least with respect to Christianity. And by and large, most of these "New Atheists" want to propagate that truth and make it a majority position. They truly do think it would be better for the believers. And they have rational arguments for why that would be the case.

I believe that if a Christian does any research themselves they will come to the same conclusions that these people do, if that's really what the truth is there will be no point in arguing about it. What we need to do is not dismiss any claims just because they aren't worth discussing in our minds. Let's actually try to debunk the myths for people and get the word out doing that. It's better than just calling people stupid.

 

[Nakosis]

Being an atheist doesn't imply much.
Being a "new atheist" implies what? That one synchronizes their thinking with folks like Dawkins and Harris?

I don't have an issue with either, but sometimes they seem to be put out there as icons for the atheist movement.

Religions and Atheists or any other self-interested groups which promote political agendas I'm not a fan of.

 

[Laika]

Ha! Well this is actually a point that I think was not fully developed by the blogger: Atheism is the beginning, presumably, and not the end. It is interesting to read Sam Harris for this reason, because I have the sense that he is bored with articulating the case against god and religion and is looking for ways to rescue things like mysticism and spirituality from their clutches. Similar, I suppose, to the concept of "secular Buddhism."

Most of these modern atheists are also skeptics with interests in cosmology, the intersection of science, technology and society, and broader issues of social justice. This is not always clear in the literature of the "New Atheists," unfortunately.

Yeah, it is the beginning, but we still don't really know what of. I have yet to find a serious discussion by the "New Atheists" of how Communism fits into our understanding of Atheism. For the most part it is dismissed as 'religion' and that's it. In reality it's much more complicated as Communists never came up with a single answer to the problem of "what comes after religion?"
I like Sam Harris as he is definitely a little more adventurous than the rest. I've yet to read any of the New Atheist's books, but Harris would be the one I start with, as he is edging into more radical territory.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I find this all pretty interesting, so thanks for posting.

I voted 'other', as for me there was a weird mix of things I was nodding along to, and things I was screwing up my nose over. So I'd say I found it interesting, and with some good points, rather than being something I agree with. I'll try and break that down a little into some more transparent points.

1) I don't like atheism being discussed as an ideology. It's not. With some people, atheism is beginning to conflate with 'New Atheism', which I'm personally not a fan of. It's inaccurate at best. I wouldn't go so far as to stop calling myself an atheist, but I understand the author's point in that regard. Words and meanings move, and it's possible that the word atheist is beginning to represent a particular ideology, and to include elements of anti-theism is many minds.

2) Conversely, I find the "New Atheists' interesting. I liked the presentation style of Hitchins, and am learning to enjoy the diversity of Harris' perspective when compared to Hitchins and Dawkins. I think the author is making a mistake by treating the 'New Atheists' as a single idealogical blob when it's not. There is variance. However, my first point stands since I don't think it's only the author who does this. I think it is a common mistake.

3) The very influence and impact of the 'New Atheists' has spawned both followers and copycats. It's at once both completely understandable, and contributing to making my first point more impactful (unfortunately).

4) I have no issue with scientific approaches to things, and I think Harris is an example that scientism can at once approach areas that it traditionally hasn't (eg. morals) and not exclude areas it sometimes has (eg. mysticism). For me, though, the authors point about secularism being an important goal, and secularism not requiring atheism is absolutely correct, and a massively important point. Honestly, and in truth, I could care less if people believe in God, Gods, pantheism, atheism, or whatever. What I care about, truly, is secularism. A religious person can be either an ally or an opponent in that battle. An atheist could too, for that matter.

So, in brief summary, much of what the blog says is overstated. But I think the points made re: politics alone are massively important, not commonly discussed, and needs to be better addressed by any sort of 'atheist movement'.
What I have seen of atheist movements is that they tend to be based on scientism or ideology, and sometimes don't appear as politically aware as they could be.

 

[dgirl1986]

Last Spring, a blogger posted an interesting and thoughtful piece about why he does not identify himself as an atheist. Writing as a British national from the Netherlands, he identified several problems with the "new atheism" of Dawkins et al:

1. Too much God. It makes no sense, he says, to be "defined" by one's lack of a belief in God or gods. Presumably, acting too much like they have found the "Good News" of atheism and are trying to spread it.

2. Too much science. Or rather, scientism: The universal application of the scientific method to truth claims, thereby excluding human endeavors that give the world and life meaning.

3. Political misdirection. The "New Atheists," baptized in the American culture wars over religion in politics, mistake atheism for secularism and mistake the promotion of atheism for the promotion of secularism.

So what do you think about the article? I think that there are some valid points being made here, but I also think the case is overstated. Which I will share as the discussion is generated.

The problem I find is with this term New Atheism. It is not New Atheism in my opinion.

Firstly, Atheism describes a religious view and nothing more. What people do with it after that is their problem.

Secondly, people tend not to distinguish the difference between atheism and anti theism. If you are trying to deconvert people from religion then you are probably an anti theist.

 

[Cephus]

I think there is too much Atheophobia in the world.

No, what there is too much of are theists who think that anyone who questions their religion must be making personal attacks against them. The very existence of anyone who disagrees and isn't quiet about it is enough for them to feel under siege.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, what there is too much of are theists who think that anyone who questions their religion must be making personal attacks against them. The very existence of anyone who disagrees and isn't quiet about it is enough for them to feel under siege.

Is that any different from Atheophobia?

 

[Cephus]

Is that any different from Atheophobia?

I don't know, is fear different from unjustified hatred?

 

[Sees]

No, what there is too much of are theists who think that anyone who questions their religion must be making personal attacks against them. The very existence of anyone who disagrees and isn't quiet about it is enough for them to feel under siege.

I agree and think it's hand in hand.

Along with atheists, pagans are worldwide, past and present, subjected to more "phobia" type of bigotry and abuse. The big dogs will twist and turn it around to make it seem as if they are victimized and under attack by the ones who truly are. New Atheism is too often an obvious part of this deceptive propaganda.

I bring up Atheophobia specifically to highlight this connection with the recent Islamophobia thread outbreaks. People are too gullible.

 

[Cephus]

I agree and think it's hand in hand.

Along with atheists, pagans are worldwide, past and present, subjected to more "phobia" type of bigotry and abuse. The big dogs will twist and turn it around to make it seem as if they are victimized and under attack by the ones who truly are. New Atheism is too often an obvious part of this deceptive propaganda.

I bring up Atheophobia specifically to highlight this connection with the recent Islamophobia thread outbreaks. People are too gullible.

Whereas there are plenty of reasons to fear radical Muslims, they have demonstrably murdered plenty of people around the world, often in horrific ways, I have to say I can't remember the last time a pagan went out and whacked off the head of an infidel for their gods. A lot of this "phobia" nonsense isn't about fear, it's about hatred, just because you're not on their team.